When Australia’s population was about to pass 25 million the Commonwealth announced that the person would most probably a migrant and not naturally born.  Given State governments have both legalised and promoted the abortion of Australian babies, the announcement was not needed. There is, however, another effect from this policy.

I have written previously about the Commonwealth’s immigration-led economic plan, published, ironically, on May Day. As policies go, immigration growth is probably the only Commonwealth policy, apart from same-sex marriage, that has bi-partisan support across the Parliament. Interestingly, however, we have not been alone in this economic charade. The United States too had, at least until the present President, an immigration policy that had bi-partisan support from both Republican and Democrat parties.

What is interesting about the bi-partisan support in both Australia and the US, however, is that in each country, the reasons for the support are totally different even contradictory. In Australia, the Commonwealth government relies on migrants to prop up economic growth through their consumption and investment when they bring their gold coins. They prop up the housing bubble when they invest in new houses and old houses and more old houses.

Labor, however, sees immigration (which includes boat people and all refugees) as being a humane way of salving their predominantly white, middle-class consciences. And don’t forget it was the ALP who originated the white Australia policy. Immigrants also bring economic benefits, a wider choice of restaurant experiences and compliant, thankful people who can’t speak English with which to stack the branches. Everyone in the ALP is directed from above (not God, we’re atheist) to man the barricades for multiculturalism and diversity.

In the United States, part of the Republican Party would abandon borders altogether to provide a source of cheap labour which will depress the wages of unskilled factory workers. The Democrats want to abandon border control so that cheap labour will depress the wages of unskilled farm labour. It has also come to light that the Obama era Democrats allowed illegal immigrants to enrol in various states to vote, a fraud that assisted Democratic Party candidates.

It is now undeniable that President Trump’s economic policies and his implementation of immigration laws have provided real growth for the nation and threatened the Republican and Democrat schemes. Wages are rising, manufacturing industries are growing again and African Americans enjoy the highest levels of employment if decades. We should ask how long does Australia have to wait until a leader arrives who can take this nation to the same place?

Australia’s bipartisan economic policy has placed its faith in mining investment, exports to China and India and increased immigration. Manufacturing industries, other than what is needed to supply the building industry, have withered and died, their product is now supplied principally from China. The last thing the government needs is a proposal that threatens any of these three sources of growth. If the threat was actualised, the Australian economy would most probably go into recession.

That is the real reason why there was bipartisan anger over Senator Anning’s maiden speech in which he attacked the levels of immigration. All that brouhaha over the words ‘final solution’ was just black smoke to hide the different interests in the immigration industry. Tony Burke had one eye on his migrant based electoral success when he objected to Anning’s speech as bigotry.

It was left to Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten to coagulate their faux-righteous indignation in a bi-partisan handshake across the dispatch box when all the time both men were terrified, though for different reasons, that immigration could stop.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.